Elton John and David Furnish's son Zachary is not an 'issue' Peter Tatchell feels strongly about

Peter Tatchell declines to speak out in defence of Sir Elton John and David Furnish after criticism of their 'surrogacy arrangement'

Sir Elton John and partner David FurnishPhoto: AP/Matt Sayles

by Tim Walker

5:50AM GMT 11 Jan 2011

After the Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, voiced his concerns over the weekend about whether Sir Elton John and David Furnish would be likely to be able to offer their child, Zachary, a "stable" home, one man has been strangely reticent to speak out in defence of the pop star and his civil partner.

Step forward – or maybe not – Peter Tatchell. "It is not an issue I feel strongly about," the homosexual rights campaigner tells me of the "surrogacy arrangement" the couple organised. "So I will pass on this one." When Sir Elton and Furnish had earlier been attempting to adopt a 14-month-old Ukrainian orphan named Lev, Tatchell had been willing to support their cause, albeit with a few qualifying clauses.

He made it clear that, if the alternative was to leave Lev in an orphanage, international adoption was "probably" in the child's best interests, "as a last resort".

The pop star has said that he numbers Tatchell among his "heroes", but, in an interview last year, the campaigner said that, while Sir Elton had offered to support him in his various endeavours, they had yet to "get around to organising it."

Anish Kapoor, the Indian-born sculptor, may well take the view that Kensington Gardens is "the best site in London for a piece of art, probably in the world."

The only problem is that the local worthies have ordained that the weird and wonderful pieces in his outdoor exhibition require around-the-clock protection.

It is not clear who, if anyone, has hostile designs on Kapoor's works, but, even in the worst of the winter weather when the park has been all but deserted, up to five security men have been charged with "guarding" the works, night and day, since they were first placed in the park in September 2010.

A spokesman for the Royal Parks says that taxpayers' money is "involved" in footing the bill for the security, but declines to put a figure on it. I wonder if anyone in the country can currently claim to have more pointless jobs than these security men, who will be there, standing sentinel, come rain or shine, until March.